WTC and Self-regulation

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)

Volume 4 (4), December 2013; 166-‐177 Kamal Heidari Soureshjani ISSN (online): 2289-‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org

166

A STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF SELF-REGULATION AND THE DEGREE OF WILLINGNESS TO COMMUNICATE ON ORAL

PRESENTATION PERFORMANCE OF EFL LEARNERS

Kamal Heidari Soureshjani

Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord Branch, Shahrekord, Iran [email protected]

ABSTRACT One of the most important skills for language learners, especially in academic settings, is the oral presentation skill. The current study, which is unique in its own, tried to shed light on the interrelationship of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners' self-regulation, willingness to communicate (WTC), and their oral presentation performance. To achieve such a purpose, 90 advanced-level EFL learners were selected on the basis of random sampling procedure and were given a questionnaire on WTC and one on self-regulation. They were also required to give an oral presentation about their favorite topic. Having gathered the data and analyzing them through correlation, independent t-test, and descriptive statistics, the study revealed that first; there is a significant relationship between the self-regulation degree of language learners and their oral performance. Second, there is a strong, positive relationship between the WTC degree of learners and their oral presentation performance. And finally, the study showed a significant difference in the oral performance of language learners showing that females are better oral presenters than males. The findings of the paper may significantly contribute to the better understanding of the conditions leading to learners’ more telling oral performance in different higher education setting including conferences. KEYWORDS: Willingness to communicate (WTC); Self-regulation; Oral presentation; EFL learners. INTRODUCTION People use language to communicate and also to get something done. For instance, they may intend to carry out some important functions in classroom such as having a good rapport with each other, or conveying their meaning by different ways like having a lecture, or having a small conversation or even having an oral presentation. Making a good oral presentation is an art that involves attention to the needs of your audience, careful planning, and attention to delivery. Clearly, the most obvious manifestation of learning a foreign or second language (L2) is the ability of learners to speak the language accurately and fluently in different contexts and also to be able to communicate their ideas clearly to other individuals who speak the same language. Therefore, in many situations knowing a language is equated with speaking that language impeccably. In addition, especially at advanced levels, oral presentation is one of the most fundamental prerequisites for many language courses or subject matters that are presented via the



167

medium of L2. Consequently, many studies in the arena of teaching and learning L2 have focused on the oral performance of students in foreign or second language classrooms (Yu, 2003; Volle, 2005) and the factors affecting oral presentations (for example, Consolo, 2006). Now a question that comes into mind is that what exactly an oral presentation is. A presentation can normally be identified by three main elements: (1) it is almost always prepared in outline form and spoken from aids or notes; (2) it normally involves visual aids or graphics; and (3) it usually is given to a participating audience, asking questions and engaging in dialog as in most classrooms. Oral presentations are a common requirement in many courses. They may be short or long, include slides or other visual aids, and be done individually or in a group which can be done by other people (Jing, 2009). Since in oral presentations, the aim is usually to convey information to audience, they can provide a real life context for communication in the second of foreign language and increase learners’ interaction in the classroom. Furthermore, it is axiomatic that English is an international language used by scads of people as a first, second, or foreign language for communication purposes (Strevens, 1992). The purpose of teaching English, as a result, has shifted from structure learning to the ability to use the language for communicative purposes. In other words, in the past, the aim of teaching English was the mastery of the structure of the language. However, in this age of communication, English seems to be playing a major role, and the purpose of teaching the language has shifted from the mastery of structure to the ability to use the language for communicative purposes. Thus, the communication aspect of teaching English has gained importance. Moreover, the ultimate goal of language learning is “authentic communication between persons of different languages and cultural backgrounds” (McIntyre, Clement, Dornyei, & Noels, 1998, p. 559). Consequently, the issues of whether learners would communicate in English when they had the chance and what would affect their willingness to communicate gain importance. Recently, a “Willingness to Communicate” (WTC) model was developed by McIntyre et al. (1998) to explain and predict second language communication. The concept of “Willingness to Communicate” (WTC) was first coined by McCroskey and his colleagues in relation to communication in the native language (McCroskey, 1992; McCroskey & Richmond, 1990; Zakahi & McCroskey, 1989). McCroskey and Richmond (1990) consider WTC as a personality feature and define it as “variability in talking behavior”. WTC was originally introduced with reference to L1 communication, and it was considered to be a fixed personality trait that is fixed across situations, but when WTC was also stretched to L2 communication situations, it was propounded that it is not necessary to fetter WTC to a feature-like variable, since the use of an L2 suggests the potential for important situational differences based on wide variations in competence and inter-group relations (Macintyre, Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1998). They claim that even though situational variables might have an impact on one’s willingness to communicate, individuals exhibit similar WTC tendencies in different situations. Moreover, they identified introversion, self-esteem, communication competence, communication apprehension and cultural diversity as factors that lead to differences in WTC. Willingness to communicate (WTC) is also defined as “readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons using a L2” (McIntyre, Clement, Dornyei & Noels, 1998, p. 547).



168

WTC can also be understood as the probability of involving in communication when free to select to do so (McCroskey & Baer, 1985). As such, WTC shows a psychological readiness to speak a second or foreign language, and is based on much more than objective linguistic competence. Besides, Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) has emerged as an important new construct in education. As the general picture of school to date is not a satisfactory one, the concept has been accepted by policy makers, teachers, educators and parents. With the emergence of this new construct, lots of debate about school reform appeared world-wide. Policy makers nowadays approve and support the basic principles of self-regulated learning and consider school reform as one of their main goals intending to change the status of the schools. In other words, educational psychologists and policy makers seek self-regulated learners. Self-regulated learning can also be described as an active process whereby learners construct goals for learning, monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior (Paris & Paris, 2001). They are guided and constrained by their own goals and the individual characteristics of a particular learning environment. Self-regulatory activities affect individual students, their level of achievement, and the learning context. It is important for students to learn how to learn and take control of their efforts (Wolters, Pintrich, & Karabenick, 2005). In addition, language learners learn a language because they want to acquire and use it to communicate with those who speak the language. They may also want to get to know the native speakers' culture and learn about the country where the language is spoken. However, what happens if a university requires students to learn a second or foreign language that the students do not wish to learn? It is obvious that students who do not want to learn the language will not be able to do well in class. Researchers believe motivation to learn is an effective factor in language learning. Taking into account issues like the present one contribute significantly in the better and more telling teaching and promoting of a language. That is, by knowing whether there is any relationship among the above-cited variables, teachers can take the most suitable strategies to encourage learners to use the language for communicative purposes and to regulate their own learning process more effectively and without causing any negative feeling. Moreover, although several studies have been conducted in recent years on self-regulation, very few, if any, have specifically focused on exploring the relationship between Self-Regulation, WTC, and oral presentation. Besides, this study is significant in that it can provide valuable data to those who serve on the front line of education. The research results may serve as a guide for foreign language teachers in terms of helping them to increase their understanding of language learning from the learner's perspective and give them more insight into the advantage of self-Regulation in communication and thereby assist then in enhancing students' ability to communicate better English. Finally, no previous study has exclusively dealt with the interrelationship among these three issues; consequently, making the present study more important than before.



169

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY Oral presentation is a practical device that if implemented carefully can provide many opportunities for language learners. Godev (2007), enumerating various benefits of oral presentations, believes that the oral presentation can give learners an awareness of new rhetorical devices that are specific to the rhetorical situation. It also provides the students with the opportunity to experience a creative process that is very similar to the writing process. In particular, Godev (2007) suggests that the oral presentation with an appropriate topic provides an enriched ground for students to use their oral skills and at the same time incorporating morpho-syntactic and discourse structures that are needed for intermediate and advanced proficiency levels. Furthermore, considering the increasing demands for a move from teacher-centered activities toward student-centered instruction (Wenden, 2002; Lee & VanPatten, 1995) It seems that oral presentation is extremely suitable for applying this principle since students have some freedom to choose a topic of their own interest, and they play the primary role during the oral performance while the teacher’s role becomes secondary during the presentation. However, to be more effective, oral presentations should follow an appropriate procedure. Godev (2007) suggests the procedure for delivering successful oral presentations should consist of: "(1) defining the topic, (2) providing information sources, (3) assisting the audience, (4) keeping track of the preparation process, (5) organizing the talk, (6) delivering the talk, and (7) obtaining the desired grade" (p. 2). In this line, the topic of presentation must be consistent with and covered in the syllabus. Teachers also should make accessible sources of information to the students in order to minimize research time. Furthermore, students must be instructed on how to interact with the audience and in order to monitor the process of preparation for oral presentations, students may be required to keep track of the preparation process in the form of various portfolios or self reports. In addition to the way students organize their talk and the way they deliver it to the audience, a grading criterion is needed to show the clarity, quality, organization of the ideas, etc. in oral presentations (Godev, 2007). There have been many attempts to realize willingness to communicate (WTC) to expound a person's degree of readiness to take part in discourse in a second or foreign language (MacIntyre, Clement, Dornyei & Noels, 1998). Some researchers have discussed that a basic goal of second language education should be the construction of WTC in the language learning process (MacIntyre et al., 2002). It is proposed that higher WTC among learners translates into increased opportunity for practice in an L2 (Second Language) and authentic L2 usage (MacIntyre et al., 2001). MacIntyre, Baker, Clément & Donovan (2002) in their studies investigated the role of gender regarding affective variables. Their findings espouse those of preceding studies (e.g., Gardner, 1985) which uncovered more desirable attitudes and motivation among female language learners. In the Macintyre et al (2002) study, results revealed an increase in WTC and a decrease in anxiety among girls as they mature whereas boys remained constant throughout their middle school years (i.e., Grades 7-9; ages 11-13). Baker and MacIntyre (2000) reported that girls had greater levels of WTC inside the classroom whereas boys were more willing to use their L2 outside the school context.



170

Another factor which may affect WTC is the channel of communication. In the past, research in computer-mediated communication (CMC) has implied that the computer might change a student’s willingness to communicate. Freiermuth (1998, 2001), as an example, found out that when groups of language learners using CMC were presented with a task to solve, they seemed more willing to communicate than groups using spoken language. On the basis of Freiermuth, the discrepancies could be related to use of the computer rather than other variables. In other words, online chat gave students an opportunity to express themselves without being prevented by the teacher, other students or a surfeit of other elements that might reduce the effect of the experience.

Schunk and Zimmerman (1998) have pointed out that self-regulated learners are generally characterized as active participants who efficiently control their learning experiences in many different ways, including organizing and rehearsing information to be learned, and holding positive beliefs about their capabilities, the value of learning and factors that influence learning. SRL is also the ability to control and influence one’s learning processes positively. The learners take personal initiative and apply powerful strategies to attain individually valued learning goals and monitor their understanding in order to detect and eliminate possible comprehension problems (Paris & Paris, 2001). Self-regulated learning can also be described as an active process whereby learners construct goals for learning, monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior (Paris & Paris, 2001). They are guided and constrained by their own goals and the individual characteristics of a particular learning environment. Self-regulatory activities affect individual students, their level of achievement, and the learning context. It is important for students to learn how to learn and take control of their efforts (Wolters, Pintrich, & Karabenick, 2005). Graham and Harris (1994) assert that self-regulated learning skills are indispensable at almost all levels of education. They then add that self-regulation assumes a prominent position in contemporary models of teaching and learning and is a major focus in the New Learning Environments (NLEs) approach. Working from a social cognitive perspective, Schunk and Zimmerman (1994) define self-regulation as a process students use in order to activate and sustain cognitions, behaviors, and affects which are systematically oriented toward attainment of their goals” (p.309). Students who are self-regulated actively participate in their own learning, rather than relying solely on teachers, parents, or other external change agents to import knowledge (Alexander, 1997). RESEARCH QUESTIONS In line with the above statements, the present study is an attempt to provide answers to the following question:

1) Is there any interrelationship between the self-regulation of EFL learners and their oral presentation performance?



171

2) Is there any interrelationship between the WTC of EFL learners and their oral presentation performance?

3) Which of the independent variables of the study is a better predictor of learners' oral presentation?

4) Does the gender of learners affect significantly their oral performance?

METHODOLOGY Participants All in all, 90 Iranian language learners, based on random sampling procedure, attending an English language institute in Shahrekord, Iran took part in the study. The participants, who were taking advanced-level courses, were 45 male and 45 female and aged between 21 and 38 years old. The reason for selecting advanced-level language learners was that in this level of proficiency much more communication is needed in classes than what is in elementary and intermediate levels.

Materials and Data Collection The first material employed in the present paper was a questionnaire on willingness to communicate. It was used to measure the participants' willingness to communicate. It comprised twelve items (Cronbach alpha = .83) from McCroskey (1992). The respondents chose the percentage of the time ranging from 0% to 100% that they would be willing to communicate in different contexts and with different addresses. As with the reliability of the questionnaire, the questionnaire was distributed among 25 learners, exclusive of the main participants. Calculating the Cronbach alpha formula, it turned out to be .81. Besides, the content and face validity of this instrument was examined by some professional experts of Shahrekord and Shiraz universities and was confirmed by them to be valid for the present paper purpose. Furthermore, to gain data regarding the self-regulation variable of learners, Language-Learners’ Self-Regulating Questionnaire (LLSQ) were utilized. It consists of 12 subscales with a total of 36 items. Besides, for ensuring about the reliability of the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted on 25 advanced-level language learners who were not included in the study sample. The reported reliability was about .78. Finally, as to the validity of the questionnaire, it was looked into by the above-mentioned professors and was approved by them to be valid for the study purpose. Finally, the language learners were also supposed to give an oral presentation on a topic favorite to them. The main reason for allowing them to choose their own topics was to diminish the negative effects of stress and other affective factors as much as possible. For evaluating their performance, a scheme was developed by the author (with the consultation of some seasoned professors and also reviewing a set of related books). The scheme consisted of a set of subsections, each assessing different aspects of learners' oral performance including their stress, fluency, structure accuracy, appropriate vocabulary, etc.



172

Data Analysis The gathered data was subjected to statistical analysis to explore the existence of any relationship between self-regulation of the language learners and their WTC and their oral performance. To be more exact, SPSS version 16 in general and two correlation analyses, along with a regression, and one independent t-test in particular were run to ascertain data regarding the above-mentioned questions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION To present the results of the study, the research questions of the study mentioned in the initial sections of the study are individually brought in and then by considering the related obtained findings of the study are answered. The first research question was:

1) Is there any interrelationship between the self-regulation of EFL learners and their oral presentation performance?

Regarding the first question in this research, it wanted to see if there is any relationship between the self-regulation of learners and their oral presentation performance. To gain knowledge on this point, correlation statistical analysis was run. Table 1 represents the results of the test.

Table 1: Self-Regulation and Oral Presentation Correlation

A set of interpretations can be made by considering this table. First, the table shows that there is a high correlation between the two factors of the study that is, self-regulation and oral presentation (Pearson Correlation = .94). Second, because the Pearson value is a positive value, it may be inferred that there is a positive correlation between the two variables. Finally, the coefficient of determination can also be obtained from the table. It is resulted by squaring the r value and converting the obtained value into percentage of variance (by multiplying it by 100). The r value showed in the table is almost .94. Therefore, coefficient of determination will be approximately 88 percent; meaning that the two variables share a considerable amount of variance. Finally, a significant difference is observed between the variables (p= .00 < .05).

2) Is there any interrelationship between the WTC of EFL learners and their oral presentation performance?

Self-regulation Oral presentation

Self-regulation

Pearson Correlation 1 .947

Sig. (2-tailed) .00 N 90 90

Oral presentation

Pearson Correlation .947 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .00 N 90 90



173

Having ascertained that there is a high, positive relationship between the self-regulation of the language learners and their oral performance, now in the second research question the interrelationship of WTC and oral presentation is addressed. Table 2 represents the pertaining results.

Table 2: WTC and Oral Presentation Correlation

The table shows that, like the previous case, there is a high correlation between the two variables (Pearson Correlation = .87). Second, because the Pearson value is a positive value, it may be inferred that there is a positive correlation between the two variables. Finally, the coefficient of determination will be approximately 75 percent; meaning that the two variables share a considerable amount of variance. Finally, a significant difference is observed between the variables (p= .00 < .05).

3) Which of the independent variables of the study is a better predictor of learners' oral

presentation?

Having proved the existence of a strong positive correlation between each of the two independent variables of the study (self-regulation and WTC), now the results of regression analysis is brought in to see which of the independent variables is a better predictor of learners' oral presentation performance. Table 3 presents the model summary findings of regression.

Table 3: Model Summary of the Variables Model

R R Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .915 .71 -.70 1.72 As the table reveals, 71 percent of the variance in the learners' oral performance is explained by the combination of the two independent variables namely self-regulation and WTC (R 2 = .71). Besides, to see whether the coefficient of the regression demonstrated by R 2 is significant or not, Table 4 is brought.

Table 4: ANOVA Results of Self-regulation and WTC Related to Oral performance Model Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 97.0 2 48.5 .513 .001

WTC Oral presentation

WTC

Pearson Correlation 1 .87

Sig. (2-tailed) .00 N 90 90

Oral presentation

Pearson Correlation .87 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .00 N 90 90



174

Residual 7191.5 76 94.6 Total 7288.5 78

The tables demonstrates that the coefficient reported by R 2 is significant (Sig. = .001). Now to pinpoint which independent variable is a better predictor of writing performance, Table 5 needs to be examined.

Table 5: Coefficients of self-regulation and WTC Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 74.566 8.207 9.085 .000

WTC .053 .136 .47 .390 .02 self-regulation .103 .102 .21 -1.010 .04

The table indicates that of the two independent variables, it is WTC that is a better predictor of learners' oral presentation performance. In other words, by examining the Beta value reported in the same table it can be inferred that with regard to WTC, one standard deviation unit change in the score for motivation leads to .47 unit of change in the oral presentation performance. And as to the self-regulation variable, this unit of change would be .21. Therefore, WTC can better predict the writing performance of language learners.

4) Does the gender of learners affect significantly their oral performance?

Finally, to ascertain whether there is any significant difference in the performance of language learners in terms of their gender, the independent t-test findings in the form of Table 6 are revealed.

Table 6: Independent T-Test of Gender and Oral Presentation

T Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper

Oral presentation

14.44

60

.00

.30

.46

1.36

.70

The table shows that the difference between the two variables is significant (t= 14.44, p=0.00). Therefore, it can be inferred that the gender of language learners has a noticeable effect on the learners' oral performance. Now to see whether girls or boys outperform as far as oral presentation is concerned, Table 7, representing the descriptive statistics, is discussed.

Table 7: Descriptive statistics of the Gender and oral performance

code N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Oral Male 45 11.47 2.13 .36



175

performance Female 45 25.23 3.44 .48

This table clearly indicates that the mean of females (M=22.23) is remarkably higher than the mean of males (M=11.47). It means that females are better oral presenters than males. Amid assorted studies about gender differences on different aspects of language, though no specific study has specifically dealt with the effect of gender on oral presentation, however, it has been several times asserted that educational research in the last several decades has proven that the gender differences manifestly influence students’ academic interests, needs, and achievements (Halpern, 1986; Collins, Kenway & McLeod, 2000). A number of studies conducted in various contexts have confirmed the presence of gender-related differences in verbal ability and language use (Thorne et al., 1983; Tannen, 1990). The consensus seems to be that females are superior to males in general verbal ability (Denno, 1982), but there is disagreement about which types of verbal ability shows gender differences. Moreover, MacIntyre, et al. (2002) in their studies investigated the role of gender regarding affective variables. They reported that girls had greater levels of WTC inside the classroom whereas boys were more willing to use their L2 outside the school context. From these findings it can be also concluded that females are more willing to have oral performance inside classrooms than males. One probable reason for this superiority can be, as Rua (2006) rightly states, girls’ achievement in foreign language learning is enhanced by the interaction of neurological, cognitive, affective, social and educational factors. CONCLUSIONS The present study was, in fact, an attempt to shed light on the point that if there is any interrelationship between the two independent variables of self-regulation and WTC of language learners and their oral presentation performance. If yes, the study also tried to ascertain which of the above-mentioned variables could account for the oral performance of learners. In addition, the examination of the effect of the gender of learners on their performance was also another purpose of the current study. As it was afore-mentioned, the analysis of the gathered data led to the following conclusions: First, there is a strong, positive relationship between the self-regulation of language learners and their oral presentation performance. Second, there is also a strong, positive relationship between the WTC degree of language learners and their oral performance. Third, of the two intended independent variables, WTC is a better predictor of the learners' oral performance. And finally, the gender of language learners doesn’t significantly affect the learners' oral presentation. The study also enjoys three major implications. First of all, self-regulation plays a salient role in the oral performance quality of language learners; therefore, language teachers continually need to reflect upon their teaching strategies and activities in order to help language learners manage, control, and enhance their self-regulation abilities. Second, teachers should also consider the point that the more self-regulated the learners, the more is the likelihood that the learners achieve higher acceptable functions they are assigned. Finally, as a general implication, individual differences of learners (like WTC) play a crucial role in the effectiveness of teaching and learning



176

process. Therefore, those who are involved in these processes (especially teachers) should be alert to the learners' individual differences. Lastly, the study may suffer from a set of limitations. First and foremost, the number of the participants is not large so that the findings need to be approached cautiously. Likewise, since the study is unique in its nature and purpose, more studies are encouraged to be done so that more accurate and reliable findings and conclusions might be drawn. Furthermore, other researchers are called for doing the same topic with regard to other variables including self-esteem, motivation, and also for other skills such as listening, reading, and even writing performances. REFERENCES Baker, C., & MacIntyre, P. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in Communication and second language orientations. Language Learning, 50, 311-341. Brenner, J. (1997). An analysis of students’ cognitive styles in asynchronous distance education

courses. Inquiry, 1(1), 37-44. Cano, J., Garton, B. L., & Raven, M. R. (1992). Learning styles, teaching styles and personality

styles of preservice teachers of agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46-52.

Cole, N. S. (1997). The ETS gender study: how females and males perform in educational setting. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Collins, C., Kenway, J., & McLeod, J. (2000). Factors influencing the educational performance of males and females in school and their initial destinations after leaving school. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Consolo, D. A. (2006). On a (re) definition of oral language proficiency for EFL teachers:

Perspectives and contributions from current research. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 1, 1-28.

Denno, D. (1982). Sex differences in cognition: A review and critique of the longitudinal evidence. Adolescence, 17, 779-788. Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Freiermuth, M. (1998). Using a chat program to promote group equity. CAELL Journal, 8, 16- 24. Freiermuth, M. (2001). Native speakers or non-native speakers: who has the floor? Online and face-to-face interaction in culturally mixed small groups. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2, 169-99. Gardner, R.C. (1988). The socio-educational model of second language learning: Assumptions, findings and issues. Language Learning, 38, 101-126. Godev, C. B. (2007). A procedure for delivering successful oral presentations in conversation

classes. Retrieved 23 May 2010 from http://www.gefad.gazi.edu.tr/window/dosyapdf/2010/1/2010-1-127-152-7+.pdf.

Goodenough, R. D., & Witkin, A. H. (1977). Origins of the field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles (Report No. ETS-RB-77-9). Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED150155).

Halpern, D. F. (1986). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Hilsdale: Erlbaum.



177

Jing, L. (2009). Application of oral presentation in ESL classroom of China. MS. Thesis. Platteville: University of Wisconsin-Platteville. Retrieved 23 May 2009 from minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/ 1793/34475/Li,%20Jing.pdf?sequence=1.

Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McCroskey, J. C (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication Quarterly, 40, 16-25. McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: the construct and its

measurement. Paper presented at the annual convention of the speech communication association, Denver, CO.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1990). Willingness to communicate: A cognitive view. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 19-37. MacIntyre, P. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A casual analysis. Communication Research Reports, 11, 135-142. MacIntyre,P., Clément, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1998) Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situated model of confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545-56. MacIntyre, P., Baker, S., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. (2002) Sex and age Effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52 (3), 537-564. Rua, P. L. (2006). The sex variable in foreign language learning: an integrative approach. Porta Linguarum, 6, 99-114. Strevens, P. (1992). English as an international language. In B. B. Kachru (Eds.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 27-47). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow. Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (Eds). (1983). Language, gender and society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Volle, L. M. (2005). Analyzing oral skills in voice e-mail and online interviews. Language

Learning & Technology, 9 (3), 146-163. Yu, L. (2003). Teaching oral presentation skills by an online multi media assisted language

learning package: A aase study. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology and Universities in Asia. Thailand: Chulalongkorn University Press. 425-441.

Wenden, A. L. (2002). Learner development in language learning. Applied Linguistics,23, 32-55. Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. k., Rastkin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). Group embedded figures test

manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Zakahi, W. R., & McCroskey, J. C. (1989). Willingness to communicate: A potential

confounding variable in communication research. Communication Reports, 2, 96-109.

WTC and Self-regulation

Documents

Transcript of WTC and Self-regulation